Moorings Ignoration: a rough guide

OK listen up, it’s complicated but i know you can do it.

These come in a bit of a funny order, the last bit, to be implemented October next year came first, is the zoning proposals, suggested to the ‘steering group’ proposed in the local consultation, which finishes on 11th January, ahead of the national consultation on 31st January where it is asked whether steering groups are a good idea.

The local proposals already have a timetable which before enough time has elapsed for a proper analysis of any consultation response implying that it will happen no matter what and that the steering group will be pushed strongly in the direction of Ms Eichmann’s plans released in September.

All the documents referred to are here;

The National Moorings Consultation
The Local Strategy Consultation

Sally Ash’s proposals for the Limpley Stoke Valley.

Zoning Proposal Meeting Minutes

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Moorings Ignoration: a rough guide”

  1. Tschawo MonsterID Icon Tschawo says:

    Sorry, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. BW do not have any duty to provide anything other than a working navigation.

  2. Paul Biddy MonsterID Icon Paul Biddy says:

    Am I alone in thinking that it is absolutely unreasonable for BW to charge for online moorings when no services or facilities are provided for boaters? Does anyone else consider BWs failure to provide services and facilities as a failure in their duty of care as a Public Authority? Why is it that BW offer mooring space with nothing at all and charge us for the privilage, while land based traveller and gypsy sites are charged in accordance with the services and facilities provided – water, electricity, kitchen. Lane based sites for itinerants with no services or facilities are provided for free? Fishy